Options for Incorporating TK and Customary Law into MAT

Transcription

1 Options for Incorporating TK and Customary Law into MAT Preston Hardison Vilm Workshop Tulalip Tribes of Washington July 6, 2009 page 1

2 Five General Approaches 1. Use existing IPR (trade secrets) 2. Accomodation into National Systems: constitutional law, policies, executive orders 3. Sui generis: Law of itself 4. Direct recognition of customary law/indigenous regulatory authority 5. Contract law page 2

3 Use existing IPR Existing forms of IP inadequate in incorporating TK and customary law into MAT. Public domain Trade secrets Positive: Mechanisms in place for in camera review Negative: Restricted use, non-disclosed TK, and problem of leakage page 3

4 Accomodation into National Systems Many Nations have not developed their systems National/state conflicts National systems may not adequately recognize IPs, PIC, or customary law Extraterritorial application page 4

5 Sui generis Law in and of itself: without precedence Some equivocation: Without precedence relative to legal system Parties tend to use it to refer to new laws within modern legal systems Indigenous peoples use it to refer to customary law: sui generis recognition Basis for recognition: Inalienable rights vs. stakeholders page 5

6 Direct recognition United Nations DECRIPS Article 11: right to practice and revitalize cultural traditions and customs States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs. page 6

7 Direct recognition Article 31: Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge... including... genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora.... They also have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and traditional cultural expressions. page 7

8 Direct recognition Article 34: Indigenous peoples have the right to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their distinctive customs, spirituality, traditions, procedures, practices and, in the cases where they exist, juridical systems or customs, in accordance with international human rights standards. page 8

9 Accomodation into National Systems Many Nations have not developed their systems National/state conflicts National systems may not adequately recognize IPs, PIC, or customary law Extraterritorial application page 9

10 Direct recognition: Tulalip Tribes Treaty tribes: Treaties negotiated under Law of Nations Treaties not enumerated rights: reserved rights doctrine Treaties did not surrender right to customary law, TK or genetic resources Retained sovereign rights and fiduciary obligations Tulalip Cultural Resources Heritage Act page 10

11 Direct recognition: Problems Tulalip code based on treaty system But, consistent with DECRIPS Oren Ishi-i! i! We have unfinished business! Longstanding debate over indigenous rights versus stakeholder interests. Extraterritorial application page 11

12 Contracts Contract law presumed by the terms of reference: MAT Not an endpoint Contracts can override existing IPR and impose stricter restrictions (e.g.: covenants, 3 rd party) Contracts can be used to contract into customary law : : procedural and substantive Doesn t t require codification of customary law page 12

13 Contracts Problem of shared knowledge, mixed property Indigenous institutions and limits Ownership clarity Conflict resolution Good faith safeguards Capacity for F&E negotiation Bargaining power imbalances Negotiating authority PIC standards page 13

14 Contracts MAT: Potential conflicts between inalienable rights and negotiation of terms Financing PIC/MAT process Access to justice/legal representation for conflict resolution Transparency/contract privacy Does no mean no? Responses to rejections Monitoring, oversight (trust, fiduciary, ombundsman) page 14

15 Competent Authorities National competent authorities Decisions, fiduciary obligations, transmittal role Certification of IPs as parties Indigenous competent authorities Indigenous-defined defined institutions Multi-level level institutions Transboundary: Subnational and international Transmittal of ABS decisions Conflicts when: NCA says yes, ICAs say no; or ICAs say yes, NCA says no page 15

16 Elements of FPIC/PIC FPIC/PIC Debate: FPIC the language of ILO and DECRIPS Free is an emphasis word, but worth having Dilemmas of prior Prior to access or use Access between (?) Access prior to 1992 Access where TK and GRs encountered separately (e.g. markets, ex situ collections, academic publications) page 16

17 Elements of FPIC/PIC Informed :: Standards for what information must be provided about: Intended uses of TK/GRs Potential effects of commercialization Release of TK into the public domain Disclosure of TK in patent applications Crowding out and spillover effects Non-monopolistic uses/competition page 17

18 Elements of FPIC/PIC Realistic assessments of potential benefits Reversability Conscientization/Options Remedies Mechanisms to withdraw consent Milestone points for reauthorization Third party controls Compensation Enforcement measures page 18

19 Consent Indigenous identification of authorities Indigenous authority Certification Review Indigenous certificates of compliance Locus of consent: vested in communities, institutions, or representative organizations Rules of contact and engagement, do not call lists Parameters/scope of consent page 19

20 Fiddly Bits Responsibility for monitoring costs and activities Responsibility for enforcement costs and activities Reasonable due diligence page 20

21 page 21 Fiddly Bits